Any polyamorists among us?

MagicMarker

I'm onto you.

Oh yeah sure you want an 'ethical', 'responsible', 'non-monogamous' relationship.

Puh-lease.

So what are our thoughts on this? A legitimate alternative lifestyle or a bunch a of randy hipsters who dress up their fear of commitment in fancy words?

DeadHand

Hang on while I consult my girlfriends and boyfriend.

Annasopra

There is one isnt there?

5uspect

Do Pam and her five sisters count?

Kevin McCloud

If i knew what a polyamorist was.

My spell check does not even recognise it.

AnonoBoy

Ah Polly mon amour.

I was in love with a Polly once.

Quite the plumage.

She always talked back though.

Turned out she was only with me for my crackers.

I know now why the caged bird sings.

For crackers.

Annasopra

Whats the name of that poster in a relationship with 2 women and they have children?

Sauve

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm onto you.

Oh yeah sure you want an 'ethical', 'responsible', 'non-monogamous' relationship.

Puh-lease.

So what are our thoughts on this? A legitimate alternative lifestyle or a bunch a of randy hipsters who dress up their fear of commitment in fancy words?

Live and let live is what I reckon. It wouldn't be for me, but that's irrelevant

Sauve

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Whats the name of that poster in a relationship with 2 women and they have children?

Alan

The_Valeyard

5uspect wrote: »

Do Pam and her five sisters count?

Ah sure she is with half the country.

DazMarz

There is one here somewhere. He'll be along soon to tell us all about it. Have no fear.

shruikan2553

Lucky bastards.

Pissy Missy

I appreciate it because at least the party is being honest rather than cheating on you behind your back, though i don't like sharing personally but each to their own

Lau2976

I think it's quite interesting. I'd try it TBH but I'm a selfish git so I can't see it going well for anybody involved but me

dr WEST mr STAR

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Whats the name of that poster in a relationship with 2 women and they have children?

Charlie sheen ?

Laura Palmer

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Ah Polly mon amour.

I was in love with a Polly once.

Quite the plumage.

She always talked back though.

Turned out she was only with me for my crackers.

I know now why the caged bird sings.

For crackers.

I bet you were always on at her to put the kettle on though.

Doc

I know a few. Nice people (the ones I know) but I wouldn't be comfortable in a relationship with them as I value monogamy in my relationships.

Smidge

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Whats the name of that poster in a relationship with 2 women and they have children?

I miss the fella that was mad for the grannies

AnonoBoy

Laura Palmer wrote: »

I bet you were always on at her to put the kettle on though.

She left me for some long-haired American lad who wrote a song about her and then blew his head off.

Some birds eh?

Calibos

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Whats the name of that poster in a relationship with 2 women and they have children?

Paging taxAHcruel...Paging taxAHcruel....

Tokyo

I am, but they keep finding out about each other... *





* may or may not be true

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY

"my girlfriend said no" doesn't sound polyethical to me.....zzzzzzzzzzzz

Doc

In all seriousness my old flatmate was in a relationship with a girl who wanted a polyamorist relationship with him. He talked about it to me a lot because he had never been in that kind of relationship before and wasn’t sure about it.
The way he described it she wanted them to be in a committed relationship with each other but that they were free to experience sex with other people if they wanted to without that being seen as cheating. There were conditions which they had with each other that are different for each polyamorist couple but they had to be honest with each other and with the people they are with not keep the experiences outside the relationship secret. She even gave him some literature on it to read. The idea from what I gathered was that basically their relationship should be based on a connection that was much more then sex and that their love was not restrictive and didn’t prevent them from loving others in the same way.

Their relationship had problems outside of the polyamorist issues which added in didn’t help so they broke up.
After that relationship he continued to learn about the lifestyle and wanted to try another relationship that was polyamorist.
He dated a couple of girls and was open with them about each other.

I moved out and he moved away so I’m not sure if he still believes in it or not as I don’t speak to him often and haven’t asked

Gongoozler

I wonder, if you're not comfortable with being in an open relationship, does it really just come down to insecurity?

smash

Just buy your girlfriend a load of wigs and only shag her doggy style...

RDM_83 again

Gongoozler wrote: »

I wonder, if you're not comfortable with being in an open relationship, does it really just come down to insecurity?

Maybe it is all insecurity but there is a big difference between the insecurity of say being jealous of X's or trying to control what clothes some-one wears for fear of the opposite sex, compared to not wanting them to have sex with other people.

Buona Fortuna

I don't even share my pizza

Gongoozler

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Maybe it is all insecurity but there is a big difference between the insecurity of say being jealous of X's or trying to control what clothes some-one wears for fear of the opposite sex, compared to not wanting them to have sex with other people.

Not that I disagree, but why do you think they're different?

Corkgirl210

Each to their own & it it works congrats.. but imho... it's a cover up for love/sex addiction and lack of intimacy/commitment... dilutes the love in all dat! ;o)

whiskeyman

Is that someone who eats Flora?

ChippingSodbury

I knew a guy who was in his fifties and had kids with his wife and also had a girlfriend in the same small town. He spend Fri, Sat, Sun with the wife and the rest of the week with the girlfriend. There never seemed to be any issue...

Pissy Missy

Gongoozler wrote: »

I wonder, if you're not comfortable with being in an open relationship, does it really just come down to insecurity?

Me thinks its down to western society tbh

Calibos

Calibos wrote: »

Paging taxAHcruel...Paging taxAHcruel....

If you insist.

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm onto you.

Oooooo matron. Ger 'orf. At least wait to be asked.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Oh yeah sure you want an 'ethical', 'responsible', 'non-monogamous' relationship.

It essentially for many has all the properties of monogamy. Except the focus of your fidelity and dedication is not just to the person but to the _relationship_ itself. Such people are entirely committed to the relationship - and are practising complete fidelity within those boundaries. It is not much of a focus shift really - I think most couples are similar - but the distinction is less clear or relevant to them because full dedication to the relationship coincides synonymously with dedication to the partner too.

There is an "alternative relationships" kind of thread live over on The Ladies Lounge forum too if you wish to read more or ask more too.

Doc wrote: »

The way he described it she wanted them to be in a committed relationship with each other but that they were free to experience sex with other people if they wanted to without that being seen as cheating.

This is somewhat different I think. There are some differences between an "open relationship" which is what you describe and what people generally consider polyamory to be. Then there polyandry. And polygamy. And more. To be honest - The labels confuse the feck out of me. I have given up on them.

I think what people generally mean by it is essentially a committed relationship with full fidelity - only the relationship has more than the standard 2 people in it.

This can include tangential relationships - that is for example a person with two relationships with two independent people - a guy with a girl in one house and another in another house for example - or a full interpersonal one where all the people in the situation are in relationships with each other - so the guy has two girlfriends for example - and they are also romantically and sexually involved. The latter is where I lie and is generally considered to be emotionally the easier to maintain as there are less chances - and causes for - jealousy and division of priorities.

But in both types the boundaries and settings are clear. You know who is involved with who - how - and in what way. And the entire relationship has all the same rules of fidelity that you would associate with any "normal couple".

A full open relationship is massively different. You do not know who your partner is sexual with - how often - when - where - why - or anything. Or what their level of emotional investment in each partner might be - or develop to be.

While my own relationship is open to the VERY occasional (talking like three times in 10 years) event where we have indulged in some level of sexual expression with people outside the relationship in an experimental way - I would certainly not be able to cope with a true "open relationship" situation. It just would not be for me. I would break down the very first time my partner left the house without me.

Gongoozler wrote: »

I wonder, if you're not comfortable with being in an open relationship, does it really just come down to insecurity?

I would say not no. We all know what we want from a relationship - what rules and boundies and conditions - and I would not put words like "insecure" or "prudish" or "close minded" or any other psychological evaluation on anyone who merely had preferences that precluded certain activities or configurations. We simply want what we want.

Saying someone is insecure just because they do not want an open relationship would be as awful as suggesting someone is racist simply because they have never been sexually attracted to asians. You simply want what you want.

Actually sometimes the exact reverse is true. Some people consent to open relationships _because_ of their insecurities. They feel - for example - that they will lose their partner if they do not consent to allow it - and so against their own better judgement and well being they consent to allow it regardless of their own feelings. And it is truely sad when this happens to the point my heart literally aches for those I know who have been cajoled into it.

Rayanne2010 wrote: »

Each to their own & it it works congrats.. but imho... it's a cover up for love/sex addiction and lack of intimacy/commitment... dilutes the love in all dat! ;o)

I have found the exact opposite to be true. And my usual response if asked about this is to ask a person who has 4 children - for example - if their love for their children feels any more dilute now than when they had 2 children only.

Never once have I had a yes answer to that question. I think what most people realise is that human love is one of the truely infinite resources we appear to have. No matter how much love your heart pours out on one target - like a child or sibling - parent or sexual partner - it is capable of doing it again for another. That does not mean we are compelled to do so - but it certainly does mean we can not question the reality of the love of those that do.

_Are_ there people who fit your evaluation above? Hell yes. Loads of them. Especially in the open relationship and swinging communities. Is it a fair generalisation by which to judge all such relationships however? Not a bit.

whiskeyman wrote: »

Is that someone who eats Flora?

Nah. And the adverts lead me to believe eating Flora is _good_ for your heart. One wonders if the same can be said of this Early grave probably.

Lau2976 wrote: »

I think it's quite interesting. I'd try it TBH but I'm a selfish git so I can't see it going well for anybody involved but me

It is not something I would recommend anyone set out to do or try or achieve. That would make it somewhat forced and less natural - something I have always found corrosive to the success of any sexual adventure short or long term. I think the people I know who have ended up in such relationships - and are making it work - tended to end up there naturally in a slow evolution of events that they neither predicted nor controlled.

One thing that seems ubiquitous in people I have met in such situations is that every one of them have openly said "If someone had asked me _before_ any of this if this is the kind of thing I would like to happen - I would have said NO".

I have yet to see a healthy example of such a relationship where any one person in it said "Hell yea - this is what I always wanted - so I set out to make it happen - and here I am".

Lau2976

Deleted User wrote: »

It is not something I would recommend anyone set out to do or try or achieve. That would make it somewhat forced and less natural - something I have always found corrosive to the success of any sexual adventure short or long term. I think the people I know who have ended up in such relationships - and are making it work - tended to end up there naturally in a slow evolution of events that they neither predicted nor controlled.

One thing that seems ubiquitous in people I have met in such situations is that every one of them have openly said "If someone had asked me _before_ any of this if this is the kind of thing I would like to happen - I would have said NO".

I have yet to see a healthy example of such a relationship where any one person in it said "Hell yea - this is what I always wanted - so I set out to make it happen - and here I am".

I should have made my position clearer, I would never go out in the mindset of looking for someone for this kind of relationship but I would be open to it naturally progressing there. I find it interesting because I find, for me anyway, that people tend to get different things from different people, whether sexually or emotionally. I see no objection to entering this relationship for me because as far as I'm concerned it is natural to not get XYZ from one person but multiple people. I see no reason to object as long as there is a mutual understanding that your relationship is seperate from theirs, unless you decide otherwise.

An interesting thing on this would be that RTE 2 show connected. I think one of them is dealing with this now?

Lau2976

Lau2976 wrote: »

I would be open to it naturally progressing there.

A good way to be. In my experience as I said however the majority - if not all - the people who ended up there seem to be saying to me (myself included) - that they would not have considered themselves open to it really if asked before it all happened. They simply somehow found themselves not only there - but happy being there.

If someone had met the 12 years ago me and - having described my relationship to me - asked would I be up for trying that kind of thing - I would have been in the "hell no" bracket I think.

Lau2976 wrote: »

An interesting thing on this would be that RTE 2 show connected. I think one of them is dealing with this now?

I might have to You Tube that one. I am in the "No Television" camp - to the point I have only just this second learned that Network 2 has renamed itself back to RTE2 apparently?

DeadHand

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am in the "No Television" camp - to the point I have only just this second learned that Network 2 has renamed itself back to RTE2 apparently?

I don't imagine you get the time to watch television.

Micky Dolenz

3somes, gang bangs, multiple partners, are for the birds and porn movies.

DeadHand

DeadHand wrote: »

I don't imagine you get the time to watch television.

Not a terrible lot. I have a few very time consuming hobbies. We do tend to take the more "hit the box set" approach to television where on occasion we watch an entire season of something over a weekend. Talking maybe once every 2 months we do this.

Tokyo

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

3somes, gang bangs, multiple partners, are for the birds and porn movies.

I spent a good three minutes looking at that post wondering when the **** I posted that....

pauliebdub

I know of a few gay relationships that are made up of three guys and they seem to work out ok but could see how it might become a problem down the road if one becomes jealous or insecure. In both cases theres one older dominant daddy type in his late 40s early 50s and two younger lads in their 20s early 30s. It really wouldnt be my cup of tea all the same, I could never join an established relationship as a third.

Micky Dolenz

mike_ie wrote: »

I spent a good three minutes looking at that post wondering when the **** I posted that....

How are you even posting? I know I should have changed those chains in the basement.

B.A._Baracus

It always sounded like a person/s wanting to have their cake and eat it.
That you pretty much want everything that comes with a relationship BUT you also want that one key & important aspect of being single too... free to sleep with who you want.

Birneybau

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Whats the name of that poster in a relationship with 2 women and they have children?

dr WEST mr STAR wrote: »

Charlie sheen ?

The first post said children, not aids.

RDM_83 again

Gongoozler wrote: »

Not that I disagree, but why do you think they're different?

Ok I'l try and articulate what i mean. I think sometimes 'natural' human reactions are designated as harmful even though they do exist for a reason, take fear its generally considered negative but in the right context fear is a rational and natural response.

My first examples are of irrational insecurity or at least a 'useless' insecurity, they aren't things you can influence or control (in a healthy relationship anyway), they don't add any more risk of infidelity or the relationship ending.

Being poly would add an additional layer of this risks to the relationship, at least to me (been in a LTR since early 20's so not greatly experienced in this though) everybody I was with even if for a really really short time I had at least a little connection to so I would see there being at least a chance of your partner meeting somebody they really clicked with at a deeper level. Hence I think its a rational insecurity.
Now I'm sure people can and do make it work and I'm not suggesting that the insecurity would always be warranted just that it has a basis thats not easily dismissed.

Dial Hard

taxAHcruel, I've always wanted to ask how you'd feel if either of your girlfriends wanted to bring another man into the equation? Because pretty much any polyamorous relationship I've seen/read about has been one man with multiple girlfriends and none of them ever seem particularly keen on the idea of another man coming on the scene.

FloatingVoter

If its a disease, I have it.
If its a drug, I've smoked it.
If its an enjoyable lifestyle thing, I'm not invited.

Dial Hard

Dial Hard wrote: »

taxAHcruel, I've always wanted to ask how you'd feel if either of your girlfriends wanted to bring another man into the equation?

I would feel exactly the same way as you would in a couple if your partner proposed this.

I think it is hard to get this across even though I have tried it a few ways. But really the best way to envision this relationship is quite literally to understand that it operates in every way the same as any couple - with the minor difference in numbers.

Like any couple our relationship evolved from first meeting into a romantic relationship - and like any couple it is unlikely anyone would want to - or would ask to - suddenly introduce another person into that dynamic.

But as with all hypothetical questions like this - or what I would do if one of them left - or what would I do if they decided to be together exclusively without me - or whatever - I simply give the same answer: It appears highly unlikely at this time to happen, and I will cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

Dial Hard wrote: »

Because pretty much any polyamorous relationship I've seen/read about has been one man with multiple girlfriends and none of them ever seem particularly keen on the idea of another man coming on the scene.

Because of my own relationship and my large amount of friends in, and my work with, the gay community, I have met a handful of people in similar relationships and you are indeed right. They are predominantly skewed towards a ratio of higher females to males. But I have met a couple that were the other way too. So they are out there. Just less common.

But for me it has nothing to do with not wanting another man on the scene. As I said the relationship is established and I would not want another PERSON on the scene in that way. Even if they proposed another girl - my reaction would be identical to another guy.

The only introduction of other people we have engaged in so far are the rare (like I said 3ish times) playing about at a party or in a game of dares that got carried away or the like where we ended up doing a few things sexually with others. But many relationships do that every so often I guess I have also proposed to them a one or two time "open relationship" thing where they get to do some playing away - which they were interested in discussing - but have not since followed up on in any way.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

Not a terrible lot. I have a few very time consuming hobbies. We do tend to take the more "hit the box set" approach to television where on occasion we watch an entire season of something over a weekend. Talking maybe once every 2 months we do this.

You only talk to each other once every 2 months?

Gongoozler

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You only talk to each other once every 2 months?

Put "I'm" before "Talking".

I've noticed it's a more frequently occurring thing that people are doing with sentences nowadays - leaving out the subject.

As if living with a linguist is not bad enough.

Gongoozler

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As if living with a linguist is not bad enough.

I don't know if you've taken it the wrong way but it wasn't my intention to offend by pointing out the source of confusion.